Thanks for sharing this, communication is pretty much doomed to failure when people have different understandings of what terms mean! I’m still not sure what ‘knowing’ means to you, but ‘fact’ is now quite clear. This too:
A fact (as you’re using the term) is true/correct? That would mean that descriptions of the world are true/correct. Is that what you’re saying?
I’m a Buddhist Two Truths kinda guy: Phenomena (appearances, your ‘facts’ maybe?) are conventionally real (your ‘true/correct’ maybe?), ultimately neither real nor not-real.
Facts would be a description that resembles what we observe. (red ball falling, Fred claims to believe in God etc - conventional reality as you call it, as ultimate reality cannot be described - nor known - nor pointed at, thus cannot be said to exist any more than glllukrb)
Knowing is the delusion that my interpretation/naming of the world is anything more than conditioning. It is the delusion that knowing that something is a “Ball” for example, or a “Bird” or an “Ultimate Reality” means that I have any actual understanding of the things named (or of the namer/myself) other than what is provided by my own imagination.
It can mean that we’re driven here by fear, but is fear the only reason for being here? If it is clear to you that fear is what moves you to participate in this discussion, you can reasonably assume it’s what moves the rest of us. So, unless you are beyond fear and here to awaken us from the nightmare of fear, we’re all here because “fear is behind it”.
Before trying to understand God or ultimate reality or Unicorns with horns on their backs - one must first find out who wants to know. See why it wants to know. And also which delusions are being used as the bedrock for this investigation.
All these questions are probably the same question.
The fact is that one person has observed X. If there is a consensus that one person has observed X, the fact is that there is a consensus that one person has observed X. If loads of people have observed X, the fact is that loads of people have observed X.
Hopefully this is pretty simple?
All my ideas about X, and people, and consensus, and other words and concepts are however merely conditioned ideas that give me the impression that I have some grasp of reality as it is.
When I perceive my hand or my car, I am under the impression that I am somehow relating with actual external existing phenomenon rather than engaging with an experience entirely made up by my brain.
Okay, I think I get it. Thanks for making the effort to explain your usage of these words.
Maybe we should each have a Glossary of Terms? The nobody Glossary would have all ambiguous words as I use them, the MacDougDoug Glossary would have your usages. Then, if something you said perplexed me, I could turn to the MacDougDoug Glossary (latest version of course!) for help. Whaddya say?
1 - To have some information in your mind
2 - The feeling that we have an understanding of something
3 - The impression that we are perceiving reality directly.
nb. All the above being automatic functions of self.
This can be experienced when we are quietly attentive (zazen?) sensation is immediately tied to “knowledge” - the naming and impression that we know whats going on.
This can be experienced by looking at a tree with normal awareness, then becoming aware (knowing) you are looking at a tree. It’s a subtle, but powerful shift.
How does learning differ from knowing in your view?
Actually 1, 2 & 3 are pretty much classical dictionary definitions - I just specified that it was a feeling of understanding, and an impression that we were perceiving reality directly from “out there”.
This is ringing alarm bells.
What do you mean by normal awareness? Who is being aware that he is being aware? And I suppose he is also aware/knows what he is being aware of? The observer, the observed and the uber observer all interacting?
Normal awareness is the everyday kind of awareness that is always present, even when you’re lost in thought or on auto-pilot. You sense, feel, do things without being aware that you are sensing, feeling, doing. You’re suddenly pulling into your work parking lot and have no memory of driving there.
I don’t think there’s a ‘who’ being aware, just awareness of sensing, feeling, doing.
It’s easy to experience this kind of awareness of awareness. Look at an object in the normal way you look at things. Then, let yourself know (become aware) that you are looking at the object. That’s the shift, it’s subtle and simple, no fireworks!
We like to say “learning is seeing the new” - but this statement includes a conflict (with the “old”) - So learning is seeing without comparison. Seeing what is being communicated (intentionally or not) without dependance on the past (aka our preconditioned suppositions)
We want learning to be a relationship that isn’t happening wholly within our own heads. This is far trickier than we might imagine - as is perhaps obvious to followers of kinfonet. Its like meditation or choiceless awareness, it cannot be done by me.
In terms of freedom from the self, non-dependance on fear or conditioning - I suppose they are.
But they are two different words, apparently pointing at slightly different concepts - so I suppose we have to ask the person what they mean by their choice of words (and they might refuse to answer - depending on their agenda)
I’d add: